If Sylvanas was ugly, would she have made it this far?

[Archmage Alodi]

That's what I gather. Torches and pitchforks, torches and pitchforks.

Rabble rabble rabble!!!

[matrix123mko]

Garrosh has many fans, Garithos has some fans, so she would also have many fans.

[schwank05]

Hell yes, I could care less what she looked like, or if she was a Guy or an Abomination. I love the Forsaken and love her character.

[Bigby]

If Genn had torn her face off during the Stormheim confrontation her fanbase would have evaporated overnight.

I'm exaggerating a bit. She's a Horde character, so there would always be rabid defenders of her (at least until they need a Garrosh-esq scapegoat again) but being both Horde AND an elf definitely makes causes the wilful delusion to soar by a few thousand percent.

Garrosh has many fans, Garithos has some fans, so she would also have many fans.

Garrosh doesn't have nearly as many fans as Sylvanas, nor is he defended so zealously despite her having committed worse acts for pettier reasons. Hell, it's often Garrosh fans who are among the loudest Sylvanas detractors.

[Justpassing]

To answer this question: Remember when how much of an outcry there was when they covered Sylvanas' midriff? I remember.

[Aucald]

Except they Stormpikes did not use the term unprovoked hostilities. The word "unprovoked" doesn't appear in that quest at all. The called the attack unannounced. Other than that, they claimed disproportionate hostilities because they admitted they were trespassing on Frostwolf territory. Their actual reason for the infringement being something else than what they thought Frostwolves thought it to be does not negate the infringement itself. In another quest they complain that the Frostwolves won't let them explore, which cannot be allowed and as such they must die. And they had fuck all in terms of authority to mine even one grain of sand in there if Frostwolves did not agree to them being in their territory.

That's a bit overly semantic, but I'll concede the point - the provocation for the Frostwolves attack was the appearance of the Stormpikes in the land that they had claimed, the attack itself was not announced and therefore a surprise to the Stormpikes. But again you're talking in-game political realities and I'm talking external narrative themes here. The arrival of the Stormpikes is more or less a passive action, even if it isn't justified, legal, or what have you - it is the attack of the Frostwolves that actually starts the conflict on which the Battleground is based. If the Dwarves had attacked the Frostwolves first, perhaps to push them off of land the Stormpikes wished to dig, then I would say you have a different story on your hands. And again, I'm not even saying the Frostwolves were in the wrong to attack, only that the narrative impetus for the conflict lies on them. The Dwarves probably would've started it eventually by muscling in on the Frostwolves (as they tend to do with their digsites), but that didn't happen because the Frostwolves went on the offensive first.

So do explain how Frostwolves acting in response (which is, lo and behold, a reaction) to Dwarves breaching their borders, and as such their sovereignty (which from the perspective of international relations is a hostile act), them acting proactively and bringing the outcome on themselves, which maintains the grand truth of Alliance being the reactive party at all times, because it looks like some temporal bending of the highest order to me. Did they kill the Stormpikes outside of Alterac and then brought their corpses back home as a warning for the next wave of Stormpikes, which fooled them into thinking the first group was killed for trespassing? If so, how could the second group know the attack was unannounced and brutal?

A legalistic defense of the Frostwolves is going to open up a lot of unanswerable questions - such as "why do the Frostwolves think it is their land?" I mean, the Stormpikes are essentially acting as imperialistic foreign invaders in this scenario (it's not their land either to be frank), but the Frostwolves were part of an otherworldly invasion force from the Dark Portal - so it's not their land by any rights, and it's not even their planet. I would say it is true that the arrival of the Stormpikes could be viewed as incitement - but there are a number of remedies besides unannounced hostilities. I don't think either party has any kind of intrinsic "right to the land" in this scenario, but that's somewhat besides the point. The first side to spill blood (and thus carrying the proverbial conflict ball), whether justly or unjustly, was the Frostwolves.

Except it doesn't any more than the fault for Fandral spreading the Nightmare as if it was magic AIDS or Benedictus almost fucking the world over by killing Thrall and getting the Dragon Soul to Deathwing sits with the Alliance. Traitors are responsible for themselves, they do not represent the faction they betrayed. And Varian knew those were traitors. Again, he explicitly used that knowledge as his motivation for getting to Undercity in the first place. Varian's declaration of war mentioned Wrathgate zero times and revolved around his hatred for the Horde that was there Wrathgate or no Wrathgate.

But he was there because of the Wrathgate incident, he was angry (with Sylvanas) because of the Wrathgate incident, and the entire conflict began with the Wrathgate incident. Varian's motives (which I agree are in bad faith) are immaterial to this - the Wrathgate incident was the genesis of the conflict. Had it not occurred then we wouldn't be having this part of the debate at all. Had Varian finally lost patience and attacked the Undercity apropos of nothing to wrest it back from the Horde and the Forsaken you'd have a different argument and I would agree that the Alliance were the proactive party in starting the conflict. That isn't what happened here - the Wrathgate incident gave Varian the excuse he needed to do what he seemed to want to do all along, but he was still *reacting* to that occurrence.

Where and when? He calls her a witch during the declaration of war and then focuses it on the Orcs almost entirely. Then his next mention of Sylvanas is, I dunno, probably during the aftermath of SoO.

He calls her an "evil witch," and the Undercity (and quite possibly the entire Horde) a "treacherous kingdom of murderers and thieves." Varian is hyper-focused on his rough treatment by the Horde during his time as an amnesiac gladiator, so obviously there's a personal matter at stake for him specifically. But his rationale is still to blame Sylvanas (and Thrall) for what happened at the Wrathgate even though he knows Putress was a traitor to the Forsaken.

Which makes Thrall a hypocrite on two folds, but that's another topic.

Agreed and agreed.

Which is why Alliance fleet sailed to Forsaken outpost in Howling Fjord and started shit even before Wrathgate. I guess Varian was split not in two versions of himself, but three and the third one was Velen. As such Varian predicted the Wrathgate and sent the fleet to Vengeance Landing as a war-time maneuver in a war that he had yet to declare.

Not sure about the genesis of that specific skirmish, to be honest. One of the first Horde quests concerning it says "Our mission in Northrend is to destroy Arthas. The Alliance are but an obstacle that we'll crush wherever we find them." Which seems to imply that the Horde and Alliance just met one-another and started fighting for reasons unknown (kind of nonsensically given the greater mission of both factions in Northrend). High Executor Anselm is non-committal about the whole thing, just saying that the Alliance presence had been "a thorn in their side" for a long time. I think it's a bit presumptive to say the Alliance started the conflict here, it's equally possible that the Forsaken claimed the land and sought to kick them to the curb due to existing hostilities or that the two forces met and clashed at the same time (with ultimately neither side being the proactive/reactive party).

Already covered Wrathgate and Alterac Valley so I'll use the other examples now. What did Dwarves react to in Bael'modan and Mulgore other than their greed causing them to ignore Horde's borders? What did Dalaran react to when they captured Ambermill and started messing with the Ley Lines there? Did Sylvanas make fun of Rhonin's glorious hair? What did the Alliance react to in Stormheim, when Genn's and Rogers' orders were to attack only if the situation warranted it, which Forsaken just sailing towards Stormheim does not meet the criteria of (as acknowledged by Anduin in BtS)? What did the Alliance react to when they killed Horde miners in Silithus to study it when they could get their own samples from any other area in the zone?

Bael'Modan: I would say this is actually an example of pure Alliance aggression. No one's saying the Alliance is *never* the proactively hostile party, just not in general.

Ambermill: Ambermill is actually part of Gilneas and not Lordaeron, and thus actually a Human settlement. It was one of the properties placed outside the Greymane Wall and thus part of the Northgate rebellion (the town and land belong to Darius Crowley).

Rhonin: The man's sobriquet was "Redhair," mockery at that point is kind of a given.

Stormheim: Aggravated by the Broken Shore incident, which is pretty much the Wrathgate incident redux. This one is a bit more murky, I admit, as Genn and Rogers acted more or less unilaterally to start the conflict in earnest. But from their perspective it was a reaction to the Broken Shore and loss of Varian there - both of them were itching for a confrontation due to the combination of that event and their existing sentiments.

Silithus: The Alliance was reacting to a perceived (and actual as the case turns out) arms race concerning the then monopoly of available Azerite. Silithus has a difficult "he said, she said" type of relationship - where depending on which faction you do the quests as the sense of fault or blame seems to shift accordingly. Looking at it completely externally I would say it's actually inapplicable to this whole debate - the conflict already exists (again due to the Broken Shore incident) before it occurred. It's not the genesis of a conflict or even a result of one, it's just part of the ongoing snarl. So in this case neither party is really to blame, or both of them are, depending on how you view it.

[EbaumsTipster]

You can count the genuinely ugly major characters on a single hand.

Cho'gall, Gul'dan... any heroes?

[Ozyorkbourne]

You can count the genuinely ugly major characters on a single hand.

Cho'gall, Gul'dan... any heroes?

Princess in Maraudon. Wew. Try not to poke a hole through the desk with that one.

[Azerate]

Ugly or not ugly are just concepts and highly subjective ones at that. It could also be argued that Sylvanas does not really follow the beauty canons of the modern world too closely so I don't really see your point

[Highwhale]

You can count the genuinely ugly major characters on a single hand.

Cho'gall, Gul'dan... any heroes?

Is Khadgar counts? His in game model face is ugly as fuck. Harbingers Khadgar is more handsome and actually looks like Ewan McGregor.

[Blizzard Moneybot]

Pretty sure that's part of the reason why people hate him. He's was written to be way, way too strong, it's part of the reason Thrall caught so much heat aswell. Jaina seems to largely get a pass for this, though. So it looks like OP is on to something.

He's written as strong, portrayed as weak. Thrall not so much. I'm pretty Malfurion couldn't win an armwrestling match against a gnome.

[Deleted]

I know I'd still like the character. If she were ugly thzn Blizzard would probably not feel they'd have to cater to the more cringy part of her fanbase so we would have avoided the serious recent blunders in how she's being written. What I love about her is how her way of fighting the pain of loss incurred at Arthas's hands depends on reproducing that pain as its agent while alienating herself from what she is truly becoming, a successor of the Lich King. Her story is about how the principles of the Lich King are being subjectivised rather than forced on by the Helm of Domination, as if it were entering the field of subjective experience.

Her being hot is nice but she should be more undead-y in my opinion to fit this aspect of the character rather than emphasize the oh em gee belf queen part which is probably what attracts most of the fandom.

[Hyral]

They already said before they didn't use Trolls and Gnomes in cinematics because of how they looked, there's precedence to character spotlight and looks. Ugly sylvanas wouldn't last very long, and even if she did she definitely wouldn't have as many worshipers pretending everything she does is MORALLY GREY.

[The Stormbringer]

Princess in Maraudon. Wew. Try not to poke a hole through the desk with that one.

The Elemental Lord of Earth, the big fat floaty lady in Deepholm!

[Blizzard Moneybot]

she definitely wouldn't have as many worshipers pretending everything she does is MORALLY GREY.

Lol the devs themselves bullshit about Morally all the time, they are the ones poisoning the well. the 'fanbois' just point to the windowlicking devs as the final authority, and they are not wrong, the devs are just functionally retarded.

[Hyral]

Lol the devs themselves bullshit about Morally all the time, they are the ones poisoning the well. the 'fanbois' just point to the windowlicking devs as the final authority, and they are not wrong, the devs are just functionally retarded.

Her worshipers have treated her as a MORALLY GREY paragon from the beginning always ignoring her very first action as a leader was to ally the Lordaeron survivors and then betry and murder them. What the devs are doing now is a shitfest but not new.

[mickybrighteyes]

Her worshipers have treated her as a MORALLY GREY paragon from the beginning always ignoring her very first action as a leader was to ally the Lordaeron survivors and then betry and murder them. What the devs are doing now is a shitfest but not new.

to be fair... those lordaeron 'survivors' were doing a bang up job killing their own allies and acting as the villain of the campaign preceding the one you're referring to.

edit:

honestly... if the devs made a habit of making main characters ugly I think the game as a whole wouldn't have made it very far.

Notice how every character that is getting some form of spotlight gets a model update to look better? Well everyone but gallywix.

[Deleted]

Quite simple question - she would of course have no chances.

[Artelia]

Well Garosh was ugly too. And many people loved him. Same with Arthas. Some people love villians and not only because boobs.

[Kithelle]

Well Garosh was ugly too. And many people loved him. Same with Arthas. Some people love villians and not only because boobs.

Yeah but a lot of people love this villain because of the boobs...